He's saying that he wonders if the point of the article is to give those that deny scientific studies in a non-scientific manner ammo. Something they can point

He's saying that he wonders if the point of the article is to give those that deny scientific studies in a non-scientific manner ammo. Something they can point to to rebuke scientific studies because they don't believe the scientific study is valid. I too didn't understand the point of this article. Nor how it showed that science is not self-correcting. To me it just talked about some issues with scientific research but didn't support it's headline at all. I've never heard anyone claim that science was self-correcting in the short term, these things take decades and sometimes even centuries to self-correct. And honestly that's ok. Science is all about having the best answer we can have, not the right answer. It's impossible to know we are right beyond the shadow of a doubt. We need to scrutinize how we research and improve our methods as we figure out how to but that doesn't mean science has some major issue. That's jut how it works and how it has historically worked as far as I know.